Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who had deleted the penalty of Rs. 83,91,064/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear for the hearing before the Tribunal, necessitating an ex-parte decision.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to cooperate with the Department and did not furnish necessary evidence during the assessment proceedings. Despite due notices, the assessee failed to appear or respond. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the Revenue's appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and whether the assessee's non-appearance warrants allowing the Revenue's appeal.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश / O R D E R PER: DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue arises against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.08.2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 which in turn arises out of penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 04.03.2019.
The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows; (AY 2012-13) ACIT v. Sh. Kamrudinbhai R. Makhani “The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 83,91,064/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act when department appeal against the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat.”
To adjudicate the case, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any application for adjournment, despite sending notices for hearing at the address given by the assessee in Form-36. Nor is there any other alternative address available with the Registry. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, we are constrained to decide this appeal as ex parte assessee.
Facts of the case are that assessment was finalized for the year under consideration by Assessing Officer has considered the reply filed by the assessee and observed that assessee failed to furnish evidence in respect of transaction carried out by assessee during the year. The assessee has never co-operated with the Department to assess the true and correct picture of income and held that assessee has committed default and Assessing Officer is satisfied to find that it is a fit case of levying penalty for concealment of inaccurate of particulars income of Rs.83,91,064/- vide order dated 04.03.2019.
The Assessing officer while passing assessment order initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded and worked out the penalty of Rs.83,91,064/-. Aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, the revenue filed the appeal against the order Ld. CIT(A) before Tribunal.
(AY 2012-13) ACIT v. Sh. Kamrudinbhai R. Makhani 6. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue submitted in support of the order of Assessing Officer.
We have considered the submission of Ld.Sr-DR of the Revenue and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.83,91,064/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by disallowing unexplained cash deposit in bank account. We note that since the assessee did not appeared before us to defend the case, in view of the Rule 25 of the ITAT, 1963. We disposed off the appeal ex-parte. For ready reference Rule 25 is reproduced; “that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the [respondent] appears afterwords and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex-parte order and restore the appeal.”
We further note that the due notices served upon to the assessee, but no response to the assessee’s side. We note that the assessee has not given due care and attention to the case and the assessee has also a non- cooperative attitude in pursuing the matter for AY 2012-13. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order u/s. 250 of the I. T. Act, in view of this situation, the revenue appeal is allowed and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is quashed.
Before parting, it would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there existed a reasonable cause for non- representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty, if so advices to seek for a recall of this order.
Order is pronounced on 08/08/2025 in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot (True Copy) �दनांक/ Date: 08/08/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��यथ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�त/ CIT आयकर आयु�त(अपील)/ The CIT(A) �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
By order/आदेश से,
सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट